|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 20 2015 15:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 14:43 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 14:19 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 14:12 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 13:41 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 12:43 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 12:23 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats).
2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register).
3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period. I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false. No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion: This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution. You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period. On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote:
Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't. You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout? On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote:
And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent. Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period. On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote:
If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not. The facts disagree with you, as documented above. They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say! The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact. On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:
You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated. The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes: "There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake. On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:
I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly. The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races. I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period. On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:
We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you. Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT. The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and you I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that. Like I said in the sentence you bolded, there is no actual reason for strict voter id laws that make it more difficult to vote to exist if the objective is to address voter fraud. Indeed, voter fraud does not exist on any meaningful scale. So saying, like you do, that "the trade-off is worth it", is profoundly ignorant, given that there is no trade-off. There is nothing to be gained on the "voter fraud" front, because there is virtually no voter fraud to begin with. So it's not a trade-off at all, it's purely a loss on the side of voter turnout. There is nothing gained on the other side of the balance in these situations of reduced voter turnout. Having a reduction in voter turnout ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% is not "some people", it's a lot of people. I'll ask you again the question you keep dodging: do you think that all other things being equal a lower voter turnout is a good thing? On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote:
If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances. First, there have been many instances of government officials providing insufficient or outright false information to voters with regards to the contents of new voter id laws (see for example in Arkansas). Second, several of these laws were enacted in recent years right before elections, which is why many courts suspended their application. Third, I do not care about your opinion on what constitutes an informed voter - the point is that if these laws reduce voter turnout, for various reasons, that is a clearly negative consequence. On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote:
Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition. Many of these laws do not make these ID free, which is precisely one of the points. I haven't dodged jack-all, you haven't asked me this question. All things being equal? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm going to say no. If the only effect of the law was to reduce to number of voters, then I would say that it was a bad law. Pretty easy question, really. I asked the question a few posts ago, under the form "Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?" (also, see here for an explanation of "all other things being equal"). If you agree that if a law's only effect is to reduce the number of voters it is a bad law, can you please explain to me what is gained from the kind of strict voter id laws we're talking about here, especially those who were passed in states which already had voter id laws, only more flexible with regards to the means of obtaining an id? Remember that nothing is actually gained on the "voter fraud" front, given that it is established the problem virtually does not exist. On March 20 2015 14:19 Introvert wrote:
And any law that doesn't make it free (like many of them do) or at least very cheap, I do have an issue with that. Also, the state doing a bad job at informing voters is bad, but I don't think it speaks to the merit of the law itself.
In my ideal world, for what it's worth, driver's licenses would be valid. Anyone without one could get another ID from the state at no charge. And all changes to voter laws would be implemented in the election cycle following the upcoming one. So if the law was passed in 2011, it would not go into effect until 2014. Many of them do not make it free or "at least very cheap", especially if you take into account the time that needs to be invested into the procedure to get them. If every potential voter received his free ID in the mail or could simply receive it when registering to vote, then yes, this would not be a problem. That's usually simply not the case for the kind of voting laws we're talking about. Cute. I know what the phrase "all things being equal" means but I wasn't sure how you were applying it here. First, I'm not convinced that there is no fraud. Perhaps not enough to change the result of an election, but that is apparently not a useful criterion to consider. I think it's quite hard to track down. Second, I think these laws are good as preventative measures. That, combined with my disbelief that these laws will result in "millions" of people being unable to vote, means it's easy to support them. In 99% of cases I put the blame on either the state for not informing the citizens, or the citizens who plan on voting put don't plan on getting an ID. Again, with there being, say, 4 years between passage and implementation, that is more than enough time. So the short and simple is: I don't think voter ID hampers voting significantly enough to offset the prevention of fraud. For most of these laws, that's been the conclusion of the Courts as well. There really isn't significant hardship. I'm waiting on stats from Texas, but from what I've read lower turnout has to do with non-competitive races more than ID laws. If I thought there was literally no ID fraud then I wouldn't support these laws. Easy. My goal here is not to defend every ID law, but to contend that racism, suppression, etc. is not the reason for these laws. Just like I don't assume that the average Democrat supports illegal immigration and amnesty to grow the Democrat party. I know it's harder to give your opponents credit for having a legitimate concern than it is to call them names, but we can do the hard stuff around here.
For what it's worth not even I think they are "racist' in the vein that they intentionally targeting black people because they are black.
Them being black (as well as generally poor) has plenty to do with why it's not seen as a travesty. Anyone who looks at the ridiculous lines (no matter how hard they try to ignore it) and then says
combined with my disbelief that these laws will result in "millions" of people being unable to vote
is being stubbornly ignorant.
|
Or, you know, the fact that the Courts ultimately uphold most of these laws gives some credence to the idea that it's probably not "millions."
|
On March 20 2015 15:21 Introvert wrote:
Or, you know, the fact that the Courts ultimately uphold most of these laws gives some credence to the idea that it's probably not "millions."
Not that I agree but..Does it matter if it's millions? Is hundreds or tens of thousands not enough to matter? Or do the other impacts of the same laws not matter?
|
On March 20 2015 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 15:21 Introvert wrote:
Or, you know, the fact that the Courts ultimately uphold most of these laws gives some credence to the idea that it's probably not "millions." Not that I agree but..Does it matter if it's millions? Is hundreds or tens of thousands not enough to matter? Or do the other impacts of the same laws not matter?
I don't want to put an absolute number on it, but obviously if the number was too large then something is wrong with the law. Assuming of course that they were prevented from voting despite trying to. If you just decide you don't want to bother with going to the DMV or government office then my patience would wear thin. There has to be some real hardship.
|
On March 20 2015 15:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 14:43 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 14:19 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 14:12 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 13:41 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 12:43 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 12:23 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats).
2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register).
3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period. I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false. No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion: This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution. You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period. On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote:
Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't. You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout? On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote:
And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent. Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period. On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote:
If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not. The facts disagree with you, as documented above. They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say! The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact. On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:
You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated. The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes: "There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake. On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:
I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly. The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races. I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period. On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:
We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you. Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT. The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and you I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that. Like I said in the sentence you bolded, there is no actual reason for strict voter id laws that make it more difficult to vote to exist if the objective is to address voter fraud. Indeed, voter fraud does not exist on any meaningful scale. So saying, like you do, that "the trade-off is worth it", is profoundly ignorant, given that there is no trade-off. There is nothing to be gained on the "voter fraud" front, because there is virtually no voter fraud to begin with. So it's not a trade-off at all, it's purely a loss on the side of voter turnout. There is nothing gained on the other side of the balance in these situations of reduced voter turnout. Having a reduction in voter turnout ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% is not "some people", it's a lot of people. I'll ask you again the question you keep dodging: do you think that all other things being equal a lower voter turnout is a good thing? On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote:
If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances. First, there have been many instances of government officials providing insufficient or outright false information to voters with regards to the contents of new voter id laws (see for example in Arkansas). Second, several of these laws were enacted in recent years right before elections, which is why many courts suspended their application. Third, I do not care about your opinion on what constitutes an informed voter - the point is that if these laws reduce voter turnout, for various reasons, that is a clearly negative consequence. On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote:
Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition. Many of these laws do not make these ID free, which is precisely one of the points. I haven't dodged jack-all, you haven't asked me this question. All things being equal? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm going to say no. If the only effect of the law was to reduce to number of voters, then I would say that it was a bad law. Pretty easy question, really. I asked the question a few posts ago, under the form "Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?" (also, see here for an explanation of "all other things being equal"). If you agree that if a law's only effect is to reduce the number of voters it is a bad law, can you please explain to me what is gained from the kind of strict voter id laws we're talking about here, especially those who were passed in states which already had voter id laws, only more flexible with regards to the means of obtaining an id? Remember that nothing is actually gained on the "voter fraud" front, given that it is established the problem virtually does not exist. On March 20 2015 14:19 Introvert wrote:
And any law that doesn't make it free (like many of them do) or at least very cheap, I do have an issue with that. Also, the state doing a bad job at informing voters is bad, but I don't think it speaks to the merit of the law itself.
In my ideal world, for what it's worth, driver's licenses would be valid. Anyone without one could get another ID from the state at no charge. And all changes to voter laws would be implemented in the election cycle following the upcoming one. So if the law was passed in 2011, it would not go into effect until 2014. Many of them do not make it free or "at least very cheap", especially if you take into account the time that needs to be invested into the procedure to get them. If every potential voter received his free ID in the mail or could simply receive it when registering to vote, then yes, this would not be a problem. That's usually simply not the case for the kind of voting laws we're talking about. Cute. I know what the phrase "all things being equal" means but I wasn't sure how you were applying it here. First, I'm not convinced that there is no fraud. Perhaps not enough to change the result of an election, but that is apparently not a useful criterion to consider. I think it's quite hard to track down. Second, I think these laws are good as preventative measures. That, combined with my disbelief that these laws will result in "millions" of people being unable to vote, means it's easy to support them. In 99% of cases I put the blame on either the state for not informing the citizens, or the citizens who plan on voting put don't plan on getting an ID. Again, with there being, say, 4 years between passage and implementation, that is more than enough time. So the short and simple is: I don't think voter ID hampers voting significantly enough to offset the prevention of fraud. For most of these laws, that's been the conclusion of the Courts as well. There really isn't significant hardship. I'm waiting on stats from Texas, but from what I've read lower turnout has to do with non-competitive races more than ID laws. If I thought there was literally no ID fraud then I wouldn't support these laws. Easy.
"Easy", you say? Well, if the sole reason you have for supporting these laws is that you think they prevent voter fraud, all you have to do is educate yourself on the subject to realize that this is simply factually not the case. Let's be clear: we're not talking about any type of fraud, we're talking about the type of voter fraud that these voter id laws address. Turns out that the phenomenon has been studied, and that the results are unambiguous: like I've repeatedly told you, such fraud is virtually non-existent.
I could advise you to read The Myth of Voter Fraud by Lorraine C. Minnite, but there's a source you can more easily consult to get your own idea: the Brennan Center for Justice report The truth about voter fraud. You can also read more on their website. The bottom line? Such voter fraud is "extraordinarily rare", "an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning". Please read this report (it's not too long) before responding to me next, because it's hard to keep believing these voter id laws address voter fraud in any meaningful way after reading it.
The author of the report also published last year an article in the Washington Post on the topic: "A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast". As he explains, "requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens." Likewise, in the GAO report I linked to earlier, the studies and report it references all point to the same conclusion, even if some methodological limitations are highlighted.
There simply is no documented trace of the kind of voter fraud that is addressed by these voter id laws beyond a few dozen instances nationwide over the last decade. Meanwhile, on the other side of the balance, there is often a reduction in turnout by tens or hundreds of thousands of people in these states. In short, there is no reason to support these laws if your concern is voter fraud, and there is every reason to oppose them if you care about voter turnout.
On March 20 2015 15:05 Introvert wrote:
My goal here is not to defend every ID law, but to contend that racism, suppression, etc. is not the reason for these laws. Just like I don't assume that the average Democrat supports illegal immigration and amnesty to grow the Democrat party. I know it's harder to give your opponents credit for having a legitimate concern than it is to call them names, but we can do the hard stuff around here.
It's been shown pretty conclusively that voter suppression is of the key reasons for these laws. You stopped arguing against this earlier, so I refer you to my earlier comments.
On March 20 2015 15:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: To make my point, it's entirely possible (I suppose) that the law does cause some undue burden. One judge says yes, but the final decision remains to be seen. I haven't read up on Arkansas, but if that law actually was causing some suppression (which I would still assume was not the purpose) then I oppose that too. I simply don;t think these laws carry all the negative side effects that are being claimed.
I provided you with the evidence supporting the existence of these negative effects. If you do not want to take it into account, that's your choice.
|
Earlier you gave me a judge's opinion, while I refer to the majority of judges opinions. Most of these laws don't give any sort of undue burden to the voter, so if the purpose was suppression they've done a pretty crappy job. To take a small number of cases still working their way through court and declare that the intention of these laws is to affect election results is to get ahead of yourself. Moreover, to assume that these reductions in turnout are not just the result of people not willing to spend the time and get the ID at some point in a 2 year window is more than a little contentious, I would say. Especially considering that, again, in most of these cases hardship is not exactly the strongest part of argument for the no-ID side.
The mere existence of negative effects is not enough to undermine the endeavour, nor is it enough to claim that these laws are designed for some nefarious purpose, which has been my contention all along.
|
On March 20 2015 15:58 Introvert wrote:
Earlier you gave me a judge's opinions, while I refer to the majority of judges opinions. Most of these laws don't give any sort of undue burden to the voter, so if the purpose was suppression they've done a pretty crappy job. To take a small number of cases still working their way through court and declare that the intention of these laws is to affect election results then you are getting ahead of yourself. Moreover, to assume that these reductions in turnout are not just the result of people not willing to spend the time and get the ID at some point in a 2 year window is more than a little contentious, I would say. Especially considering that, again, in most of these cases hardship is not exactly the strongest part of argument for the no-ID side.
The mere existence of negative effects is not enough to undermine the endeavour, nor is it enough to claim that these laws are designed for some nefarious purpose, which has been my contention all along.
You are ignoring most of my post, which explained to you that the kind of voter fraud that is addressed by the voting laws we're talking about is largely a myth. Since you said yourself that your support for these voter id laws was based on your belief that they had a meaningful impact on voter fraud, please address what I replied to you. Your belief is not supported by facts. The reality is that the type of fraud that these voter id laws address is non-existent. Do you understand this, yes or no? If you do not understand it yet, go read the report I linked you to. If you still believe these voter id laws address voter fraud in any meaningful way, please explain how you came to that conclusion.
With regards to what you're going back to, namely the intent behind these laws, you did not "refer to the majority of judges opinions" in any meaningful way. You haven't referenced any in particular, or explained why they would support the idea that the intent was not at least in part to suppress votes. Meanwhile, I referenced a detailed analysis of the evidence leading to the conclusion by a federal judge that there was an objective to discriminate behind the Texas ID law - and the nice aspect of this analysis was that much of it could be transposed to cases in other states. I mentioned as well the opinion put forward by another judge in a court decision over a Wisconsin voter id law. I also linked you to a study on the racial bias of the lawmakers that supported such voter id laws in several states, and provided you with a video of the Republican House Majority Leader in Pennsylvania expressively saying that the voter id law he championed would allow Romney to win the state. You can also find plenty of articles in the press exploring the relationship between these new voter id laws and the populations which are the most affected by it. This and the fact that the sole reason put forward for adopting these laws is completely bogus - and is known to be completely bogus - is pretty indicative of the real reason behind them. I'm not sure what other type of circumstantial evidence you're expecting. I'm guessing you won't be convinced unless we bring you a video of Republicans confessing to the charge? Well, you already pretty much had that with the PA House Majority Leader speech video.
Again, please stop responding to me with your opinion on what is hard or not hard. I do not care about your opinion on the matter. You have no clue about the detail of all of these voter id laws, or about what needs to be done/paid by some people to be able to vote. You just don't know, so not only are your comments on the matter an opinion, they're also an uninformed opinion. What I am interested in are facts, and it is a fact that such voter id laws can reduce (and have reduced in several cases) voter turnout by around 1,5% to 3%.
|
On March 20 2015 16:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 15:58 Introvert wrote:
Earlier you gave me a judge's opinions, while I refer to the majority of judges opinions. Most of these laws don't give any sort of undue burden to the voter, so if the purpose was suppression they've done a pretty crappy job. To take a small number of cases still working their way through court and declare that the intention of these laws is to affect election results then you are getting ahead of yourself. Moreover, to assume that these reductions in turnout are not just the result of people not willing to spend the time and get the ID at some point in a 2 year window is more than a little contentious, I would say. Especially considering that, again, in most of these cases hardship is not exactly the strongest part of argument for the no-ID side.
The mere existence of negative effects is not enough to undermine the endeavour, nor is it enough to claim that these laws are designed for some nefarious purpose, which has been my contention all along. You are ignoring most of my post, which explained to you that the kind of voter fraud that is addressed by the voting laws we're talking about is largely a myth. Since you said yourself that your support for these voter id laws was based on your belief that they had a meaningful impact on voter fraud, please address what I replied to you. Your belief is not supported by facts. The reality is that the type of fraud that these voter id laws address is non-existent. Do you understand this, yes or no? If you do not understand it yet, go read the report I linked you to. If you still believe these voter id laws address voter fraud in any meaningful way, please explain how you came to that conclusion. With regards to what you're going back to, namely the intent behind these laws. You did not "refer to the majority of judges opinions" in any meaningful way. You haven't referenced any in particular, or explained why they would support the idea that the intent was not at least in part to suppress votes. Meanwhile, I referenced a detailed analysis of the evidence leading to the conclusion by a federal judge that there was an objective to discriminate behind the Texas ID law - and the nice aspect of this analysis was that much of it could be transposed to cases in other states. I mentioned as well the opinion put forward by another judge in a court decision over a Wisconsin voter id law. I also linked you to a study on the racial bias of the lawmakers that supported such voter id laws in several states, and provided you with a video of the Republican House Majority Leader in Pennsylvania expressively saying that the voter id law he championed would allow Romney to win the state. You can also find plenty of articles in the press exploring the relationship between these new voter id laws and the populations which are the most affected by it. This and the fact that the sole reason put forward for adopting these laws is completely bogus - and is known to be completely bogus - is pretty indicative of the real reason behind them. I'm not sure what other type of circumstantial evidence you're expecting. I'm guessing you won't be convinced unless we bring you a video of Republicans confessing to the charge? Well, you already pretty much had that with the PA House Majority speech video. Again, please stop responding to me with your opinion on what is hard or not hard. I do not care about your opinion on the matter. You have no clue about the detail of all of these voter id laws, or about what needs to be done/paid by some people to be able to vote. You just don't know, so not only are your comments on the matter an opinion, they're also an uninformed opinion. What I am interested in are facts, and it is a fact that such voter id laws can reduce (and have reduced in several cases) voter turnout by around 1,5% to 3%.
I'm ignoring it because I've already explained that I don't think it's a large problem. No more needs to be said. Our disagreement is largely about intent, so yes, that is my focus.
I have referenced the fact that there are at least 31 other states with ID laws. Most notably, there was the one from Indiana that went all the way to the Supreme Court and was upheld. 6-3, with that racist Stevens (think that is who it was) joining the majority.
For the Texas law, I've said let it play out. Same with Wisconsin. I fundamentally disagree that the intent must be voter suppression because fraud is so rare, perhaps even non-existent. That don't follow logically. You start off by assuming that it's motivated by politics. I want to wait and see the results from Texas, now that the election has actually happened.
Meanwhile you talk of facts when the very GAO study we have both been citing talks about 10 studies, 5 of which found no significant effect. Or the fact that a majority of American citizens support ID laws. By your own logic, that makes all of them Republicans intent on disenfranchisement, apparently.
You've given me lots of words, but all of them hinge on the idea that there are only two options. Support ID laws because there is wide spread fraud, or support ID laws because you want to stop certain people from voting. Since the former is false, it must be the latter! Problem is, that's wrong. That is my focus.
So really the reason I ignore what I ignore and address what I address is because they have different levels of relevance.
If you are going to keep pressing this false dichotomy then there is no reason to continue.
oh, and for funsies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/08/12/National-Politics/Polling/question_6227.xml?uuid=Rvao1OQZEeGJ93biOpgtBg
|
On March 20 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 16:27 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 15:58 Introvert wrote:
Earlier you gave me a judge's opinions, while I refer to the majority of judges opinions. Most of these laws don't give any sort of undue burden to the voter, so if the purpose was suppression they've done a pretty crappy job. To take a small number of cases still working their way through court and declare that the intention of these laws is to affect election results then you are getting ahead of yourself. Moreover, to assume that these reductions in turnout are not just the result of people not willing to spend the time and get the ID at some point in a 2 year window is more than a little contentious, I would say. Especially considering that, again, in most of these cases hardship is not exactly the strongest part of argument for the no-ID side.
The mere existence of negative effects is not enough to undermine the endeavour, nor is it enough to claim that these laws are designed for some nefarious purpose, which has been my contention all along. You are ignoring most of my post, which explained to you that the kind of voter fraud that is addressed by the voting laws we're talking about is largely a myth. Since you said yourself that your support for these voter id laws was based on your belief that they had a meaningful impact on voter fraud, please address what I replied to you. Your belief is not supported by facts. The reality is that the type of fraud that these voter id laws address is non-existent. Do you understand this, yes or no? If you do not understand it yet, go read the report I linked you to. If you still believe these voter id laws address voter fraud in any meaningful way, please explain how you came to that conclusion. With regards to what you're going back to, namely the intent behind these laws. You did not "refer to the majority of judges opinions" in any meaningful way. You haven't referenced any in particular, or explained why they would support the idea that the intent was not at least in part to suppress votes. Meanwhile, I referenced a detailed analysis of the evidence leading to the conclusion by a federal judge that there was an objective to discriminate behind the Texas ID law - and the nice aspect of this analysis was that much of it could be transposed to cases in other states. I mentioned as well the opinion put forward by another judge in a court decision over a Wisconsin voter id law. I also linked you to a study on the racial bias of the lawmakers that supported such voter id laws in several states, and provided you with a video of the Republican House Majority Leader in Pennsylvania expressively saying that the voter id law he championed would allow Romney to win the state. You can also find plenty of articles in the press exploring the relationship between these new voter id laws and the populations which are the most affected by it. This and the fact that the sole reason put forward for adopting these laws is completely bogus - and is known to be completely bogus - is pretty indicative of the real reason behind them. I'm not sure what other type of circumstantial evidence you're expecting. I'm guessing you won't be convinced unless we bring you a video of Republicans confessing to the charge? Well, you already pretty much had that with the PA House Majority speech video. Again, please stop responding to me with your opinion on what is hard or not hard. I do not care about your opinion on the matter. You have no clue about the detail of all of these voter id laws, or about what needs to be done/paid by some people to be able to vote. You just don't know, so not only are your comments on the matter an opinion, they're also an uninformed opinion. What I am interested in are facts, and it is a fact that such voter id laws can reduce (and have reduced in several cases) voter turnout by around 1,5% to 3%. I'm ignoring it because I've already explained that I don't think it's a large problem. No more needs to be said. Our disagreement is largely about intent, so yes, that is my focus.
This is a hilariously transparent attempt at changing the focus of this part of the discussion in order to avoid confronting the fact that your position (or at least the belief you referred to earlier) has been utterly demolished by what I presented you with. Let's quote what you said just a couple of posts ago: "First, I'm not convinced that there is no fraud. [...] So the short and simple is: I don't think voter ID hampers voting significantly enough to offset the prevention of fraud. [...] If I thought there was literally no ID fraud then I wouldn't support these laws. Easy."
My reply to this was to present you with sources explaining clearly and thoroughly that the kind of voter fraud that voter id laws are supposed to address is non-existent. YOU claimed that "if I thought there was literally no ID fraud then I wouldn't support these laws. Easy". Now that I've provided you with sources establishing there is no reason whatsoever to believe such voter fraud is a problem because it simply virtually never happens, you've completely abandoned ship and you now refuse to even address the topic. Your refusal to respond to what I presented you with speaks volumes :-)
On March 20 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:
I have referenced the fact that there are at least 31 other states with ID laws. Most notably, there was the one from Indiana that went all the way to the Supreme Court and was upheld. 6-3, with that racist Stevens (think that is who it was) joining the majority.
I'm not sure how the fact that there are plenty of states with voter id laws and that the one from Indiana was upheld by the Supreme Court is supposed to support your argument in any way. I'm not saying there aren't or that it wasn't.
On March 20 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:
For the Texas law, I've said let it play out. Same with Wisconsin. I fundamentally disagree that the intent must be voter suppression because fraud is so rare, perhaps even non-existent. That don't follow logically. You start off by assuming that it's motivated by politics. I want to wait and see the results from Texas, now that the election has actually happened.
Again, I'm not sure how "letting it play out" is supposed to be relevant - whether or not the SC finds it constitutional is not what we're discussing. What matters with regards to the topic of intent is the analysis laid out in the judge's opinion. The analysis thoroughly evaluates the evidence available and reaches the conclusion that at least one of the objectives of the law was to target specific groups. If you disagree with the analysis, feel free to explain to me what in the reasoning and the evidence provided you are in disagreement with.
On March 20 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:
Meanwhile you talk of facts when the very GAO study we have both been citing talks about 10 studies, 5 of which found no significant effect.
That is, again, irrelevant, since I am not arguing that every single voter id law is going to reduce voter turnout. What I am arguing is that it can reduce voter turnout and that it has reduced voter turnout in several cases. That is, again, a fact, as the GAO report (that I first referenced) quite thoroughly shows.
No, there's a big difference between being a voter largely uninformed on a topic and being a lawmaker creating and passing legislation on a topic you've had to study a minimum. You seem to be very confused about what we're arguing here - I'm not disputing that Americans see voter fraud as a problem. As I explained earlier, however, the facts of the issue is that the voter fraud that voter id laws are supposed to address virtually does not actually exist.
On March 20 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:
You've given me lots of words, but all of them hinge on the idea that there are only two options. Support ID laws because there is wide spread fraud, or support ID laws because you want to stop certain people from voting. Since the former is false, it must be the latter! Problem is, that's wrong. That is my focus.
So really the reason I ignore what I ignore and address what I address is because they have different levels of relevance.
If you are going to keep pressing this false dichotomy then there is no reason to continue.
I asked you to explain to me why you would support voter id laws, and the sole reason you provided me with was addressing voter fraud. Since it has been established that the kind of voter fraud that voter id laws are supposed to address is non-existent, and since this has been widely tackled in several media that lawmakers are likely to read (including the fox news website, btw), the idea that a sincere conviction among Republican lawmakers only that ID voter fraud is a huge problem that suddenly needs to be immediately tackled is extremely dubious. On the opposite side, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence, as documented in the references I provided you with, that shows that voter discrimination is at least one of the objectives behind the laws. This was also spelled out by the PA House Majority Leader who championed his state's voter id law. Feel free to bury your hand in the sand if you want, though.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 20 2015 18:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 16:27 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 15:58 Introvert wrote:
Earlier you gave me a judge's opinions, while I refer to the majority of judges opinions. Most of these laws don't give any sort of undue burden to the voter, so if the purpose was suppression they've done a pretty crappy job. To take a small number of cases still working their way through court and declare that the intention of these laws is to affect election results then you are getting ahead of yourself. Moreover, to assume that these reductions in turnout are not just the result of people not willing to spend the time and get the ID at some point in a 2 year window is more than a little contentious, I would say. Especially considering that, again, in most of these cases hardship is not exactly the strongest part of argument for the no-ID side.
The mere existence of negative effects is not enough to undermine the endeavour, nor is it enough to claim that these laws are designed for some nefarious purpose, which has been my contention all along. You are ignoring most of my post, which explained to you that the kind of voter fraud that is addressed by the voting laws we're talking about is largely a myth. Since you said yourself that your support for these voter id laws was based on your belief that they had a meaningful impact on voter fraud, please address what I replied to you. Your belief is not supported by facts. The reality is that the type of fraud that these voter id laws address is non-existent. Do you understand this, yes or no? If you do not understand it yet, go read the report I linked you to. If you still believe these voter id laws address voter fraud in any meaningful way, please explain how you came to that conclusion. With regards to what you're going back to, namely the intent behind these laws. You did not "refer to the majority of judges opinions" in any meaningful way. You haven't referenced any in particular, or explained why they would support the idea that the intent was not at least in part to suppress votes. Meanwhile, I referenced a detailed analysis of the evidence leading to the conclusion by a federal judge that there was an objective to discriminate behind the Texas ID law - and the nice aspect of this analysis was that much of it could be transposed to cases in other states. I mentioned as well the opinion put forward by another judge in a court decision over a Wisconsin voter id law. I also linked you to a study on the racial bias of the lawmakers that supported such voter id laws in several states, and provided you with a video of the Republican House Majority Leader in Pennsylvania expressively saying that the voter id law he championed would allow Romney to win the state. You can also find plenty of articles in the press exploring the relationship between these new voter id laws and the populations which are the most affected by it. This and the fact that the sole reason put forward for adopting these laws is completely bogus - and is known to be completely bogus - is pretty indicative of the real reason behind them. I'm not sure what other type of circumstantial evidence you're expecting. I'm guessing you won't be convinced unless we bring you a video of Republicans confessing to the charge? Well, you already pretty much had that with the PA House Majority speech video. Again, please stop responding to me with your opinion on what is hard or not hard. I do not care about your opinion on the matter. You have no clue about the detail of all of these voter id laws, or about what needs to be done/paid by some people to be able to vote. You just don't know, so not only are your comments on the matter an opinion, they're also an uninformed opinion. What I am interested in are facts, and it is a fact that such voter id laws can reduce (and have reduced in several cases) voter turnout by around 1,5% to 3%. I'm ignoring it because I've already explained that I don't think it's a large problem. No more needs to be said. Our disagreement is largely about intent, so yes, that is my focus. This is a hilariously transparent attempt at changing the focus of this part of the discussion in order to avoid confronting the fact that your position (or at least the belief you referred to earlier) has been utterly demolished by what I presented you with. Let's quote what you said just a couple of posts ago: "First, I'm not convinced that there is no fraud. [...] So the short and simple is: I don't think voter ID hampers voting significantly enough to offset the prevention of fraud. [...] If I thought there was literally no ID fraud then I wouldn't support these laws. Easy." My reply to this was to present you with sources explaining clearly and thoroughly that the kind of voter fraud that voter id laws are supposed to address is non-existent. YOU claimed that "if I thought there was literally no ID fraud then I wouldn't support these laws. Easy". Now that I've provided you with sources establishing there is no reason whatsoever to believe such voter fraud is a problem because it simply virtually never happens, you've completely abandoned ship and you now refuse to even address the topic. Your refusal to respond to what I presented you with speaks volumes :-) Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:
I have referenced the fact that there are at least 31 other states with ID laws. Most notably, there was the one from Indiana that went all the way to the Supreme Court and was upheld. 6-3, with that racist Stevens (think that is who it was) joining the majority. I'm not sure how the fact that there are plenty of states with voter id laws and that the one from Indiana was upheld by the Supreme Court is supposed to support your argument in any way. I'm not saying there aren't or that it wasn't. Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:
For the Texas law, I've said let it play out. Same with Wisconsin. I fundamentally disagree that the intent must be voter suppression because fraud is so rare, perhaps even non-existent. That don't follow logically. You start off by assuming that it's motivated by politics. I want to wait and see the results from Texas, now that the election has actually happened. Again, I'm not sure how "letting it play out" is supposed to be relevant - whether or not the SC finds it constitutional is not what we're discussing. What matters with regards to the topic of intent is the analysis laid out in the judge's opinion. The analysis thoroughly evaluates the evidence available and reaches the conclusion that at least one of the objectives of the law was to target specific groups. If you disagree with the analysis, feel free to explain to me what in the reasoning and the evidence provided you are in disagreement with. Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:
Meanwhile you talk of facts when the very GAO study we have both been citing talks about 10 studies, 5 of which found no significant effect. That is, again, irrelevant, since I am not arguing that every single voter id law is going to reduce voter turnout. What I am arguing is that it can reduce voter turnout and that it has reduced voter turnout in several cases. That is, again, a fact, as the GAO report (that I first referenced) quite thoroughly shows. No, there's a big difference between being a voter largely uninformed on a topic and being a lawmaker creating and passing legislation on a topic you've had to study a minimum. You seem to be very confused about what we're arguing here - I'm not disputing that Americans see voter fraud as a problem. As I explained earlier, however, the facts of the issue is that the voter fraud that voter id laws are supposed to address virtually does not actually exist. Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 16:54 Introvert wrote:
You've given me lots of words, but all of them hinge on the idea that there are only two options. Support ID laws because there is wide spread fraud, or support ID laws because you want to stop certain people from voting. Since the former is false, it must be the latter! Problem is, that's wrong. That is my focus.
So really the reason I ignore what I ignore and address what I address is because they have different levels of relevance.
If you are going to keep pressing this false dichotomy then there is no reason to continue. I asked you to explain to me why you would support voter id laws, and the sole reason you provided me with was addressing voter fraud. Since it has been established that the kind of voter fraud that voter id laws are supposed to address is non-existent, and since this has been widely tackled in several media that lawmakers are likely to read (including the fox news website, btw), the idea that a sincere conviction among Republican lawmakers only that ID voter fraud is a huge problem that suddenly needs to be immediately tackled is extremely dubious. On the opposite side, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence, as documented in the references I provided you with, that shows that voter discrimination is at least one of the objectives behind the laws. This was also spelled out by the PA House Majority Leader who championed his state's voter id law. Feel free to bury your hand in the sand if you want, though.
---
You actually quoted her conclusion, her analysis was strangely missing from your post. No fear, I went back and read a good deal of it, I hope you did as well. I will give a few thoughts in a spoiler at the bottom, but I won't say much about them, since it is a particular circumstance.
----
I said
Meanwhile you talk of facts when the very GAO study we have both been citing talks about 10 studies, 5 of which found no significant effect.
You said:
That is, again, irrelevant, since I am not arguing that every single voter id law is going to reduce voter turnout.
This is, of course, quite relevant because you are making the case that the only reason anyone would support voter ID laws is for political reasons (or they are "uniformed" which wasn't something you were saying earlier. I mean, that's a LOT of people who are uniformed apparently. Interesting, considering the media attention). And for you to admit to even ONE instance or possibility where this is not the case would destroy the dichotomy you have constructed. Thankfully, we have the Supreme Court, which already got rid of this. Voter ID laws are not inherently discriminatory, nor is their only rationale voter suppression. Which was the primary point I was making. Perhaps the one in Texas is! I don't think so, but maybe it is!
All that needs to happen is for you admit that it's even possible to support these laws for a good-faith reason and this whole conversation ends.
I will explicitly make two concessions:
1) The need for these laws is low
2) it's possible they can be discriminatory and maybe even be unconstitutional.
Now I don't think #2 is very common, but it's possible.
+ Show Spoiler +She says Defendants rely on the proposition that SB 14 is a facially-neutral law imposing
burdens that do not exceed the normal burdens associated with a normal life, including
voting. Given the demographic statistics of the No-Match List, and the Plaintiffs’
testimony, it is clear that possessing a photo ID, possessing a birth certificate, having a
nearby DPS or other ID-issuing office, having transportation, and having the funds to
purchase an ID are all things that are not within normal, tolerable burdens.
But I think those things are tolerable burdens. $2 for a birth certificate ONCE in your entire life (twice if you are unlucky) is not unreasonable. If you can't spend a few hours getting the ID, how on earth can you spend a few hours (at most) at the polling place? Those can be far away too! And there was this too The evidence establishes that discriminatory purpose was at least
one of the motivating factors for the passage of SB 14. “Once racial discrimination is
shown to have been a ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind enactment of the
[challenged] law, the burden shifts to the law’s defenders to demonstrate that the law
would have been enacted without this factor.”547 The record demonstrates that SB 14 was
discriminatory, among other reasons, because: (a) its list of acceptable IDs was the most
restrictive of any state and more restrictive than necessary to provide reasonable proof of
identity; (2) IDs that had expired more than 60 days before an election were still capable
of identifying the ID-holder, yet were not permitted; and (3) there is no cost-free way for
an indigent to prove up his or her identity in order to vote. Her best argument is the one about disparate impact. But this is where time and education comes in. If you wait long enough and make enough noise, you can bring the amount of voters with valid ID's up in all groups. All these pertain to this law which says nothing about other states. Her basic complaint was that this law was more strict than those passed by the other states. Maybe it fails the Constitutionality test. I don't think so, she does. We will see. More judges will have a crack at it before it's over.
Edit: it's late, and I don't have much more to say really. Yes, these laws CAN be discriminatory, but they certainly all aren't. Also there are good-faith reasons to support them. That is my position.
To below: most Americans of all ethnicities and political affiliations support voter ID.
|
Wow... Just wow.
This law seems at best just useless and at worst its dimishing voter turnout. So why do you defend it? Is there any reason for you to defend it except that it came from the republican side?
"liberty, freedom, small goverment"... But useless voter ID is the shiat!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it really is funny because the tea party types were rather suspicious of a national id program, what with the tracking chips and fema camps.
|
On March 20 2015 15:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 15:21 Introvert wrote:
Or, you know, the fact that the Courts ultimately uphold most of these laws gives some credence to the idea that it's probably not "millions." Not that I agree but..Does it matter if it's millions? Is hundreds or tens of thousands not enough to matter? Or do the other impacts of the same laws not matter? I don't want to put an absolute number on it, but obviously if the number was too large then something is wrong with the law. Assuming of course that they were prevented from voting despite trying to. If you just decide you don't want to bother with going to the DMV or government office then my patience would wear thin. There has to be some real hardship.
So you would be in favor of firearm registration, yes?
|
President Barack Obama told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the United States would "reassess" aspects of its relationship with Israel after Netanyahu's provocative statements leading up to Tuesday's Israeli election.
The phone call Thursday was officially described as a message of congratulations on Netanyahu's victory, but it also carried a serious warning after the prime minister opposed the creation of a Palestinian state in the last days of his campaign.
"The President told the Prime Minister that we will need to re-assess our options following the Prime Minister's new positions and comments regarding the two state solution," according to a White House official.
According to an official statement put out after the call, the president also emphasized the United States' "long-standing commitment to a two-state solution" during their conversation.
Earlier Thursday, Netanyahu walked back his disavowal of a two-state solution, a position he endorsed in an effort to appeal to right-wing voters with polls showing him facing tough competition.
U.S. officials had already said that they have been waiting to see if Netanyahu would stand behind the campaign comments nixing a Palestinian state as he moves toward forming a governing coalition.
It took two days for Netanyahu's about face.
"I don't want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution," Netanyahu said Thursday in an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. "I haven't changed my policy.
source
|
the ideal way to address it would be to make some kind of id card for voting only for those who don't have any other id, it is free, and it can be applied for by phone, mail, internet, whatever. if both parties were actually interested in doing something like that they could easily brain storm and find a way - autoverify people when they register their kids at public school, etc. The actually cases of voter fraud are obviously small (and also, I think it's easily something that can be underreported - good luck catching someone it since voting locations won't have cameras most often) but just because it's small doesn't mean that both parties should put aside political bullshit to address it. it's not something that really would effect big elections since it would be horribly inefficent, but really more local town stuff where small politics are decided by very few votes at times, and a motivated small town political party can get a few extra votes that way. (also I am not sure why voter lines came up since that clearly effects all voters, so it's entirely irrelevant)
perspective: the city i grew up in has 80k+ population and I know there were several elections where the difference was under 100 votes, including at least 2 where it was under 10. one school budget passed by 3 votes. that's not like something no one cares about like did billy bob make the traffic board. it was a budget well over $100m, funded by local taxes, and involved tons of campaigning along red/blue party lines. im not sure how closely you guys follow you own local stuff, but it's every bit as nasty as the big boy stuff, they often get funding from parties on the county/state level, and people are absolutely not above doing something to give themselves an advantage if possible. so this stuff might not be meaningful in a presidential or even county election most times, but on a local level it could be.
certainly I think that's important enough to find a solution, but it should be a solution that works for the people, not burdens them with expenses. dems are still fucking salty about all the discrepencies in 2002. both parties should find a way to make it work without passing the buck on to the voters. they should strive to curtail abuse. both parties piss away tax money on far more frivolous shit
but as far as intent, the republicans obviously do a whole bunch of kind of racist or blatantly racist shit. But I think if you want to claim their intent is to disenfranchise voters here, then you'd also would have to agree that the dems are fighting it simply because it's a move that targets their voters. I don't see how one party gets the benefit of the doubt but the other doesn't for something that can effect the outcome of smaller elections which everyone should be invested in locally
On March 20 2015 21:08 oneofthem wrote:
it really is funny because the tea party types were rather suspicious of a national id program, what with the tracking chips and fema camps.
tea partiers are honestly so weird. I can't understand them at all.
|
On March 20 2015 21:08 oneofthem wrote:
it really is funny because the tea party types were rather suspicious of a national id program, what with the tracking chips and fema camps.
Don't lump me witb the conspiracy people plz. I don't think most Tea Party people are.
Never mind that this isn't national ID, it's state ID.
|
WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has begun an aggressive campaign to block President Obama’s climate change agenda in statehouses and courtrooms across the country, arenas far beyond Mr. McConnell’s official reach and authority.
The campaign of Mr. McConnell, the Senate majority leader, is aimed at stopping a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations requiring states to reduce carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Once enacted, the rules could shutter hundreds of coal-fired plants in what Mr. Obama has promoted as a transformation of the nation’s energy economy away from fossil fuels and toward sources like wind and solar power. Mr. McConnell, whose home state is one of the nation’s largest coal producers, has vowed to fight the rules.
Since Mr. McConnell is limited in how he can use his role in the Senate to block regulations, he has taken the unusual step of reaching out to governors with a legal blueprint for them to follow to stop the rules in their states. Mr. McConnell’s Senate staff, led by his longtime senior energy adviser, Neil Chatterjee, is coordinating with lawyers and lobbying firms to try to ensure that the state plans are tangled up in legal delays.
On Thursday, Mr. McConnell sent a detailed letter to every governor in the United States laying out a carefully researched legal argument as to why states should not comply with Mr. Obama’s regulations. In the letter, Mr. McConnell wrote that the president was “allowing the E.P.A. to wrest control of a state’s energy policy.”
To make his case, Mr. McConnell is also relying on a network of powerful allies with national influence and roots in Kentucky or the coal industry. Within that network is Laurence H. Tribe, a highly regarded scholar of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and a former mentor of Mr. Obama’s. Mr. Tribe caught Mr. McConnell’s attention last winter when he was retained to write a legal brief for Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal producer, in a lawsuit against the climate rules.
Source
|
On March 20 2015 22:44 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 15:37 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 15:21 Introvert wrote:
Or, you know, the fact that the Courts ultimately uphold most of these laws gives some credence to the idea that it's probably not "millions." Not that I agree but..Does it matter if it's millions? Is hundreds or tens of thousands not enough to matter? Or do the other impacts of the same laws not matter? I don't want to put an absolute number on it, but obviously if the number was too large then something is wrong with the law. Assuming of course that they were prevented from voting despite trying to. If you just decide you don't want to bother with going to the DMV or government office then my patience would wear thin. There has to be some real hardship. So you would be in favor of firearm registration, yes?
Not sure what you are getting at, but I don't think this applies to guns. If you can afford a gun and ammo today chances are you can afford the paperwork.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 21 2015 01:43 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 21:08 oneofthem wrote:
it really is funny because the tea party types were rather suspicious of a national id program, what with the tracking chips and fema camps. Don't lump me witb the conspiracy people plz. I don't think most Tea Party people are. Never mind that this isn't national ID, it's state ID.
im proposing a more comprehensive national id system. would help with crime and immigration control as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
